This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Janssen COVID-19 vaccine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Janssen COVID-19 vaccine.
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
On 25 February 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Ad26.COV2.S to Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. The result of the discussion was moved. |
On 3 July 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine to Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I added "Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine" to the lead so this is immediately more identifiable as the correct article to laypeople. Should "Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine", or similar, not be the article's name per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:RECOGNIZABLE? Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine#Rename to Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and Talk:Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine#Requested move 16 December 2020 had similar discussion which resulted in such a change. I'll ping No such user who was involved with both. Sorry if this request is inappropriate in some way, and I'm open to other opinions, but this page is extraordinarily likely to be of widespread public interest if/when it is FDA-approved for emergency use (and the FDA's decision on that appears to be rather soon). It would probably be a good idea if its page were more immediately identifiable to people searching for information about it. A wide and diverse array of news outlets refer to this vaccine with this name or very similar ones (e.g. "Johnson & Johnson's vaccine" in the NYT or "J&J’s COVID vaccine" in Fortune). Chillabit ( talk) 04:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Chillabit, I noticed your post about renaming the article. The post also inspired a few ideas to improve the accessibility to related information such as Adenovirus vaccines and the JNJ/Janssen clinical protocol. These suggestions are based on Enwebb's decision to model the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine article with other COVID-19 vaccine articles.
Below are the concepts. What are your thoughts Chillabit, Neutrality, Enwebb, and No such user?
1. Add a See also section to the article after the Deployment and impact section, then add two links to the proposed See also section.
2. Add two links to the External links section.
3. Add Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine article link to the Johnson & Johnson Template box in the "Related section".
Best -- Chefmikesf ( talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. Adenoviridae is present in the lead, so it would not go in a see also. I have no problem adding a see also section with adenovirus vaccine, which is not currently linked. Enwebb ( talk) 21:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
There is some controversy arising from concerns over stem cell use (in the development?) of the J&J vaccine. See, for example: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/johnson-johnson-vaccine-rekindles-religious-dilemma-morality-fetal/story?id=76204922 and many others. J&J has made a policy statement that may be relevant here. See: https://www.jnj.com/about-jnj/policies-and-positions/our-position-on-human-pluripotent-stem-cell-research It would be useful to address this issue in the article. Clarify the use of stem cells, the stem cell type, stem cells used as a research vehicle as differentiated from an ingredient, and perhaps information, misinformation, disinformation, and hype related to this topic. Thanks! -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 13:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a Fauci interview about this vaccine on the Commons, see here. I am not sure what we could use this for, any ideas? I had figured it is worth a shot to bring this up, maybe someone else has an idea. Also, if someone finds a usable (i.e. not strictly copyrighted) photo of the vaccine, we could use that to illustrate. -- Chillabit ( talk) 07:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"This vaccine is based on a similar technology to Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccine, using human adenovirus it is more similar to Sputnik V, but is less effective." We cant just compare the vaccines by the percetange of the clinical trials, they took place in different countries, different time, in different wave of the Sars-Cov-2 and faced possible different basic mutation in the community 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ραμνουσία ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello again Chillabit, Neutrality, Enwebb, and No such user,
I noticed a few inaccuracies on the Authorization and eligibility by country map and authorization section on the article and found sources to improve both sections. Could you look at these?-- Chefmikesf ( talk) 19:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help)
EU conditional marketing authorisation is not equivalent to an EUA. It is equivalent to accelerated approval. -- Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 22:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
SWP13 ( talk) 17:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Added about the FDA and CDC Joint Statement on recommending to pause it over a rare type of blood clotting that has caused a death, we might want to add these if they mention them. Coasterghost ( talk) 12:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Summary of orders and deliveries on 21 April 2021, as written on Wikipedia now.
This information is not easily readable on Wikipedia, could we create a table of this?
-- ee1518 ( talk) 20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The Authorization and eligibility by country map in the Regulatory approval process section is incorrect, since it displays EU and EFTA countries colored in blue, therefore incorrectly indicating that an Emergency Use Authorization has been issued. All of the EU member states, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland should thus be colored in purple, as to correctly reflect the state of the vaccine's authorization in those countries (Conditional Marketing Authorization for EU, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, (Temporary) Marketing Authorization for Switzerland). Lorenzo Diana ( talk) 12:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This vaccine is almost exclusively known by the "Jansen" name in some countries' public media. I would suggest it be included in the introduction for easier identification, and possibly in the title as well. Brilliantwiki2 ( talk) 22:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I can confirm Jansen is used nowhere. But Janssen is very much used officially at least in USA.
-- ee1518 ( talk) 22:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
This is from refence #1 of the article:
https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=14a822ff-f353-49f9-a7f2-21424b201e3b
18 CLINICAL TRIAL RESULTS AND SUPPORTING DATA FOR EUA
Efficacy Against COVID-19
(So even cough means moderate covid-19 here, not mild covid. I guess mild covid would be completely asymptomatic then, only PCR would be positive. As a healthy person can have 37.x°C temperature without sickness)
In the United States, 96.4% of strains were identified as the Wuhan-H1 variant D614G;
in South Africa, 94.5% of strains were identified as the 20H/501Y.V2 variant (B.1.351 lineage);
in Brazil, 69.4% of strains were identified to be a variant of the P.2 lineage and 30.6% of strains were identified as the Wuhan-H1 variant D614G. As of February 12, 2021, SARS-CoV-2 variants from the B1.1.7 or P.1 lineages were not found in any of the sequenced samples.
Onset | Moderate to Severe/Critical (95% CI) | Severe/Critical (95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|
US | at least 14 days after vaccination | 74.4% (65.0; 81.6) | 78.0% (33.1; 94.6) |
at least 28 days after vaccination | 72.0% (58.2;81.7) | 85.9% (-9.4; 99.7) | |
Brazil | at least 14 days after vaccination | 66.2% (51.0; 77.1) | 81.9% (17.0; 98.1) |
at least 28 days after vaccination | 68.1% (48.8; 80.7) | 87.6% (7.8; 99.7) | |
South Africa | at least 14 days after vaccination | 52.0% (30.3; 67.4) | 73.1% (40.0; 89.4) |
at least 28 days after vaccination | 64.0% (41.2; 78.7) | 81.7% (46.2; 95.4) |
In the previous table the "14 days" is a bit more reliable than "28 days", because the CIs = confidence intervals are narrower.
14 days US: 81.6-65.0=16.6%
28 days US: 81.7-58.2=23.5%
14 days Brazil: 77.1-51.0=26.1%
28 days Brazil: 80.7-48.8=31.9%
14 days SA: 67.4-30.3=37.1%
28 days SA: 78.7-41.2=37.5%
-- ee1518 ( talk) 22:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 ( talk) 14:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine → Janssen COVID-19 vaccine – Following WP:MEDTITLE and WP:MEDORG, the WHO, the CDC and the NHS seem to prefer Janssen instead of Johnson & Johnson. Fernando Trebien ( talk) 17:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I saw the warning on the Edit Page, so I did not want to change anything. Here is the Politico Article describing the Efficacy of the Janssen Vaccine for the Delta Variant J&J shot effective against Delta variant in large South Africa study OSSYULYYZ ( talk) 02:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Necessary? How so? WP:NOTNEWS, WP:MEDMOS -- Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 05:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
An efficacious vaccine is essential to prevent further morbidity and mortality.[2]
If a vaccine has high efficacy, a lot fewer people in the group who received the vaccine got sick than the people in the group who received the placebo.[3]
Monitoring vaccine effectiveness is critical to: Optimize use of limited resources, Demonstrate impact of vaccine on health outcomes (justify cost), Optimize vaccine uptake, Stimulate development of improved vaccines[4]
Some people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will still get sick because no vaccine is 100% effective. Experts continue to monitor and evaluate how often this occurs, how severe their illness is, and how likely a vaccinated person is to spread COVID-19 to others.[5]
Vaccine acceptance improved when the efficacy increased beyond 70%.[6]
References
Listening to interesting https://www.rnz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018840431 interview with Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.. He said that the J& J vaccine works on the antatabine producing B cells and had proved to be more effective over time than the RmA Pfizer virus that works on the T cells
If ever there was a time for great humility in the world of science, it's now says Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. He's been on the front line of COVID strategy from day one, and now more than two years later, he says the virus is still throwing curve balls all the time. He's working with a team of imminent scientists on the roadmap for what's next and shares the latest science on the new variants, long COVID, vaccines for children and how the world must learn to live with COVID.
Sorry about the messiness of this post but I think this is important scientific information
06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.53.207.122 ( talk)
* A second, separate analysis of the immune response to different vaccine regimens, conducted by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), demonstrated that a heterologous booster (different vaccine) of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in individuals who initially received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine generated a 41-fold increase in neutralizing antibody responses by 4 weeks following the boost and a 5-fold increase in CD8+ T-cells to Omicron by 2 weeks. * A homologous boost with BNT162b2 generated a 17-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies by 4 weeks following the boost and a 1.4-fold increase in CD8+ T-cells by 2 weeks. * The Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine boosted median Omicron-reactive CD8+ T-cells by 5.5-fold, and Omicron-reactive CD4+ T-cells by 3.1-fold, while the homologous (BNT162b2) regimen boosted both Omicron-reactive CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells by 1.4-fold.
---
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Janssen COVID-19 vaccine article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Janssen COVID-19 vaccine.
|
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
On 25 February 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Ad26.COV2.S to Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine. The result of the discussion was moved. |
On 3 July 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine to Janssen COVID-19 vaccine. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I added "Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine" to the lead so this is immediately more identifiable as the correct article to laypeople. Should "Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine", or similar, not be the article's name per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:RECOGNIZABLE? Talk:Moderna COVID-19 vaccine#Rename to Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and Talk:Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine#Requested move 16 December 2020 had similar discussion which resulted in such a change. I'll ping No such user who was involved with both. Sorry if this request is inappropriate in some way, and I'm open to other opinions, but this page is extraordinarily likely to be of widespread public interest if/when it is FDA-approved for emergency use (and the FDA's decision on that appears to be rather soon). It would probably be a good idea if its page were more immediately identifiable to people searching for information about it. A wide and diverse array of news outlets refer to this vaccine with this name or very similar ones (e.g. "Johnson & Johnson's vaccine" in the NYT or "J&J’s COVID vaccine" in Fortune). Chillabit ( talk) 04:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Chillabit, I noticed your post about renaming the article. The post also inspired a few ideas to improve the accessibility to related information such as Adenovirus vaccines and the JNJ/Janssen clinical protocol. These suggestions are based on Enwebb's decision to model the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine article with other COVID-19 vaccine articles.
Below are the concepts. What are your thoughts Chillabit, Neutrality, Enwebb, and No such user?
1. Add a See also section to the article after the Deployment and impact section, then add two links to the proposed See also section.
2. Add two links to the External links section.
3. Add Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine article link to the Johnson & Johnson Template box in the "Related section".
Best -- Chefmikesf ( talk) 20:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. Adenoviridae is present in the lead, so it would not go in a see also. I have no problem adding a see also section with adenovirus vaccine, which is not currently linked. Enwebb ( talk) 21:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
There is some controversy arising from concerns over stem cell use (in the development?) of the J&J vaccine. See, for example: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/johnson-johnson-vaccine-rekindles-religious-dilemma-morality-fetal/story?id=76204922 and many others. J&J has made a policy statement that may be relevant here. See: https://www.jnj.com/about-jnj/policies-and-positions/our-position-on-human-pluripotent-stem-cell-research It would be useful to address this issue in the article. Clarify the use of stem cells, the stem cell type, stem cells used as a research vehicle as differentiated from an ingredient, and perhaps information, misinformation, disinformation, and hype related to this topic. Thanks! -- Lbeaumont ( talk) 13:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a Fauci interview about this vaccine on the Commons, see here. I am not sure what we could use this for, any ideas? I had figured it is worth a shot to bring this up, maybe someone else has an idea. Also, if someone finds a usable (i.e. not strictly copyrighted) photo of the vaccine, we could use that to illustrate. -- Chillabit ( talk) 07:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
"This vaccine is based on a similar technology to Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccine, using human adenovirus it is more similar to Sputnik V, but is less effective." We cant just compare the vaccines by the percetange of the clinical trials, they took place in different countries, different time, in different wave of the Sars-Cov-2 and faced possible different basic mutation in the community 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ραμνουσία ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello again Chillabit, Neutrality, Enwebb, and No such user,
I noticed a few inaccuracies on the Authorization and eligibility by country map and authorization section on the article and found sources to improve both sections. Could you look at these?-- Chefmikesf ( talk) 19:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help)
EU conditional marketing authorisation is not equivalent to an EUA. It is equivalent to accelerated approval. -- Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 22:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
SWP13 ( talk) 17:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Added about the FDA and CDC Joint Statement on recommending to pause it over a rare type of blood clotting that has caused a death, we might want to add these if they mention them. Coasterghost ( talk) 12:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Summary of orders and deliveries on 21 April 2021, as written on Wikipedia now.
This information is not easily readable on Wikipedia, could we create a table of this?
-- ee1518 ( talk) 20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The Authorization and eligibility by country map in the Regulatory approval process section is incorrect, since it displays EU and EFTA countries colored in blue, therefore incorrectly indicating that an Emergency Use Authorization has been issued. All of the EU member states, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland should thus be colored in purple, as to correctly reflect the state of the vaccine's authorization in those countries (Conditional Marketing Authorization for EU, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, (Temporary) Marketing Authorization for Switzerland). Lorenzo Diana ( talk) 12:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
This vaccine is almost exclusively known by the "Jansen" name in some countries' public media. I would suggest it be included in the introduction for easier identification, and possibly in the title as well. Brilliantwiki2 ( talk) 22:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I can confirm Jansen is used nowhere. But Janssen is very much used officially at least in USA.
-- ee1518 ( talk) 22:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
This is from refence #1 of the article:
https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=14a822ff-f353-49f9-a7f2-21424b201e3b
18 CLINICAL TRIAL RESULTS AND SUPPORTING DATA FOR EUA
Efficacy Against COVID-19
(So even cough means moderate covid-19 here, not mild covid. I guess mild covid would be completely asymptomatic then, only PCR would be positive. As a healthy person can have 37.x°C temperature without sickness)
In the United States, 96.4% of strains were identified as the Wuhan-H1 variant D614G;
in South Africa, 94.5% of strains were identified as the 20H/501Y.V2 variant (B.1.351 lineage);
in Brazil, 69.4% of strains were identified to be a variant of the P.2 lineage and 30.6% of strains were identified as the Wuhan-H1 variant D614G. As of February 12, 2021, SARS-CoV-2 variants from the B1.1.7 or P.1 lineages were not found in any of the sequenced samples.
Onset | Moderate to Severe/Critical (95% CI) | Severe/Critical (95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|
US | at least 14 days after vaccination | 74.4% (65.0; 81.6) | 78.0% (33.1; 94.6) |
at least 28 days after vaccination | 72.0% (58.2;81.7) | 85.9% (-9.4; 99.7) | |
Brazil | at least 14 days after vaccination | 66.2% (51.0; 77.1) | 81.9% (17.0; 98.1) |
at least 28 days after vaccination | 68.1% (48.8; 80.7) | 87.6% (7.8; 99.7) | |
South Africa | at least 14 days after vaccination | 52.0% (30.3; 67.4) | 73.1% (40.0; 89.4) |
at least 28 days after vaccination | 64.0% (41.2; 78.7) | 81.7% (46.2; 95.4) |
In the previous table the "14 days" is a bit more reliable than "28 days", because the CIs = confidence intervals are narrower.
14 days US: 81.6-65.0=16.6%
28 days US: 81.7-58.2=23.5%
14 days Brazil: 77.1-51.0=26.1%
28 days Brazil: 80.7-48.8=31.9%
14 days SA: 67.4-30.3=37.1%
28 days SA: 78.7-41.2=37.5%
-- ee1518 ( talk) 22:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 ( talk) 14:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine → Janssen COVID-19 vaccine – Following WP:MEDTITLE and WP:MEDORG, the WHO, the CDC and the NHS seem to prefer Janssen instead of Johnson & Johnson. Fernando Trebien ( talk) 17:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I saw the warning on the Edit Page, so I did not want to change anything. Here is the Politico Article describing the Efficacy of the Janssen Vaccine for the Delta Variant J&J shot effective against Delta variant in large South Africa study OSSYULYYZ ( talk) 02:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Necessary? How so? WP:NOTNEWS, WP:MEDMOS -- Whywhenwhohow ( talk) 05:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
An efficacious vaccine is essential to prevent further morbidity and mortality.[2]
If a vaccine has high efficacy, a lot fewer people in the group who received the vaccine got sick than the people in the group who received the placebo.[3]
Monitoring vaccine effectiveness is critical to: Optimize use of limited resources, Demonstrate impact of vaccine on health outcomes (justify cost), Optimize vaccine uptake, Stimulate development of improved vaccines[4]
Some people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will still get sick because no vaccine is 100% effective. Experts continue to monitor and evaluate how often this occurs, how severe their illness is, and how likely a vaccinated person is to spread COVID-19 to others.[5]
Vaccine acceptance improved when the efficacy increased beyond 70%.[6]
References
Listening to interesting https://www.rnz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018840431 interview with Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.. He said that the J& J vaccine works on the antatabine producing B cells and had proved to be more effective over time than the RmA Pfizer virus that works on the T cells
If ever there was a time for great humility in the world of science, it's now says Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. He's been on the front line of COVID strategy from day one, and now more than two years later, he says the virus is still throwing curve balls all the time. He's working with a team of imminent scientists on the roadmap for what's next and shares the latest science on the new variants, long COVID, vaccines for children and how the world must learn to live with COVID.
Sorry about the messiness of this post but I think this is important scientific information
06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)06:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.53.207.122 ( talk)
* A second, separate analysis of the immune response to different vaccine regimens, conducted by Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), demonstrated that a heterologous booster (different vaccine) of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in individuals who initially received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine generated a 41-fold increase in neutralizing antibody responses by 4 weeks following the boost and a 5-fold increase in CD8+ T-cells to Omicron by 2 weeks. * A homologous boost with BNT162b2 generated a 17-fold increase in neutralizing antibodies by 4 weeks following the boost and a 1.4-fold increase in CD8+ T-cells by 2 weeks. * The Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine boosted median Omicron-reactive CD8+ T-cells by 5.5-fold, and Omicron-reactive CD4+ T-cells by 3.1-fold, while the homologous (BNT162b2) regimen boosted both Omicron-reactive CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells by 1.4-fold.
---